By
Paul Rosenzweig
No better tool exists for working reporters covering the U.S. government than the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Through FOIA, reporters can get access to information about governmental operations that is not otherwise available and, often, open a window into the internal deliberations of those who represent us.
That should make an upcoming hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of interest to all reporters. According to Politico, Congress is investigating whether “political meddling at the [Department of Homeland Security] has led to delays in responding to requests, and could violate a law that forbids ‘arbitrarily or capriciously’ withholding information through FOIA.”
As a former Homeland Security official I confess to some ambivalence about this inquiry. Speaking from personal experience, I certainly wanted situational awareness about potentially explosive FOIA requests that were being answered. If the DHS FOIA office was about to release emails, or documents that were likely to wind up on the front page of a newspaper, or in the hands of a Congressman asking questions, any reasonable political appointee would want to know about it, so that s/he could be prepared to answer questions, instead of having the “deer in the headlights” look.
Continue reading →
By
Paul Rosenzweig
As Scott Anderson has reported, TSA wants vendors to build new machines that will let us stop taking off our shoes before we board the plane. If the vendors can come up with a product that works, that will certainly be good. But it’s only a first step.
Everyone agrees that we need to do aviation security security differently. Critics say that the whole checkpoint process is ineffective and nothing more than “security theater.” In their view, threats to aviation are already well handled by other steps (like hardening cockpit doors). And it seems that almost every traveler has some TSA checkpoint horror story to tell — delays, rudeness, items confiscated (or, more tellingly, missed) during screening, and the like.
Even TSA Administrator John Pistole knows that change is necessary. He gave a speech to the American Bar Association earlier this month in which he called for streamlining the checkpoint experience and focusing resources on higher risk passengers. A blue-ribbon panel chaired by former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge recommended something similar — using a risk-based approach to passenger screening and doing away with the “one size fits all” mentality that every traveler should be screened the same. Continue reading →
By
Paul Rosenzweig
For ages, the border between Canada and the U.S. has been more a line of political demarcation than a practical barrier. Culturally, especially in areas of New England, the border had seemed to not to really exist, at all. In Derby Line, Vermont, for example, the border literally runs through the library, and the town shares a sewage treatment system with its Canadian neighbor. Elsewhere, Canadians and Americans cross the border almost as easily – it is commonplace to note that Canada is America’s largest trading partner by a wide margin.
Since September 11th, that has changed. Canadians characterize the increased U.S. security measures as a “thickening” of the border. And their perfectly correct. Since 2001, the U.S. has imposed new cargo inspection requirements and, for the first-time, a passport requirement for entry into the U.S. for Canadian citizens (and returning Americans). U.S. security concerns, first heightened when the Millenium Bomber, Ahmed Ressam, tried to enter the U.S. through Canada, increased in the post-9/11 environment.
At the core of this “thickening” is a disparity in how America and Canada approach questions of border entry. They have different cargo screening rules; Continue reading →
